Robot-Assisted Pancreatic Surgery—the Russian Experience.

Indian Journal of Surgery - Tập 82 - Trang 912-917 - 2020
Andrey Germanovich Kriger1,2, Stanislav Valerievich Berelavichus1,2, Ayrat Radikovich Kaldarov1,3, David Semyonovich Gorin1,2, Alexander Vyacheslavovich Smirnov1,3, Zekster Vita Yur’evna4,5
1Ministry of Health, A.V. Vishnevsky Institute of Surgery, Moscow, Russian Federation
2A.V. Vishnevsky Institute of Surgery, Moscow, Russian Federation
3A.V. Vishnevsky Institute of Surgery, Moscow region, Russian Federation
4Ministry of Health, I.M. Sechenov First Medical State University, Moscow, Russian Federation
5I.M. Sechenov First Medical State University, Moscow, Russian Federation

Tóm tắt

Surgical procedures that involve working in small anatomical spaces can be successfully performed using robot-assisted surgery. We did a retrospective study of the results of 86 robot-assisted pancreatic operations performed in the Abdominal Department No.1 of the A.V. Vishnevsky Institute of Surgery, Moscow. Seventy (81.4%) patients were female, and 16 (18.6%) were male; the average age was 49 (37; 59). The following robot-assisted surgeries were performed: 17 pancreaticoduodenectomies, 45 distal pancreatectomies, 16 tumor enucleations, 6 median resections, and 2 total duodenopancreatectomies. The duration of robot-assisted surgical operations varied depending on the extent of the surgery: for a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), it was 400 (360–550) min; for a distal pancreatectomy, it was 210 (180–250) min. Estimated blood loss in a PD was 200 (150–500) ml; in a distal pancreatectomy, it was 100 (50–300) ml. Conversions happened in 6 cases: 2 of them in PD and 4 in distal pancreatectomies. The postoperative length of stay was 15 ± 9 days and depended on the extent of the surgery. The maximum length (16 days) was after robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomies (14–25), the minimum (12 days) after organ-preservation surgery (8; 15). Pancreatic fistula А and В occurred in 35 (40.7%) patients and hemorrhages in 6 (7.0%) cases; there were 2 cases of 30-day mortality (2.3%). Robotic assistance can be successfully used in pancreatic surgery. Robot-assisted procedures ensure the precision of lymphadenectomy and anastomoses formation, and the postoperative lengths of stay are more comfortable for patients due to minimal tissue injury. The use of the robot-assisted approach in pancreatic surgery does not guarantee that specific postoperative complications will not occur.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Ho C-K, Kleeff J, Friess H, Büchler MW (2005) Complications of pancreatic surgery. HPB (Oxford) 7(2):99–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13651820510028936 Goh BK, Tan YM, Chung YF, Cheow PC, Ong HS, Chan WH, Chow PK, Soo KC, Wong WK, Ooi LL (2008) Critical appraisal of 232 consecutive distal pancreatectomies with emphasis on risk factors, outcome, and management of the postoperative pancreatic fistula: a 21-year experience at a single institution. Arch Surg 143(10):956–965. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.143.10.956 Gagner M, Pomp A, Herrera MF (1996) Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors. Surgery 120:1051–1054 Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8:408–410 Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138(7):777–784 Giulianotti PС, Sbrana F, Bianco FM (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24:1646–1657 Boggi U, Signori S, de Lio N, Perrone VG, Vistoli F, Belluomini M, Cappelli C, Amorese G, Mosca F (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100(7):917–925 Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM (2011) Robotic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Comparative Study at a Single Institution. World J Surg 35:2739–2746 Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM (2012) Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc 26:2397–2402 Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME, Steve J, Moser AJ, Bartlett DJ, Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH (2015) Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg 150(5):416–422 Kriger AG, Berelavichus SV, Gorin DS, Kaldarov AR, Karelskaya NA, Akhtanin EA (2015) Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. Khirurgiya 9:50–56. https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia2015950-56 Berelavichus SV, Titova NV, Kaldarov AR, Smirnov AV, Kriger AG (2017) Robot-assisted operations on the pancreas. Annaly Hirurgicheskoy Gepatologii 1:103–111 Del Chiaro M, Segersvärd R (2014) The state of the art of robotic pancreatectomy. Biomed Res Int 2014(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/920492 Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Coratti A, Desiderio J, Parisi A, Falconi M (2013) Current status of robotic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review. Surg Oncol 22:201–207 Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R, Swan RZ, Iannitti DA, Vrochides D, Martinie JB (2015) Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: role in 2014 and beyond. J Gastrointest Oncol 6(4):396–405 Balzano G, Bissolati M, Boggi U, Bassi C, Zerbi A, Falconi M (2014) A multicenter survey on distal pancreatectomy in Italy: results of minimally invasive technique and variability of perioperative pathways. Updat Surg 66:253–263 Bao PQ, Mazirka PO, Watkins KT (2014) Retrospective comparison of robot-assisted minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms. J Gastrointest Surg 18:682–689 Ryan CE, Ross SB, Sukharamwala PB, Sadowitz BD, Wood TW, Rosemurgy AS (2015) Distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy: a robotic or LESS approach. JSLS 19(1):e2014.00246. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00246